Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Street Smarts

As luck would have it Andrew both of this elections leading candidates are going to keep you gainfully employed for a long time to come. Hopefully, one day you will realize that being a bullet catcher for the military industrial complex is a pretty crappy way to make a living.

Thanks, Andrew for putting a real face to the reason my father, a career military man, said that the military should not be allowed to vote because they vote for job security. We are not a militaristic society - if we were there would be more than a fraction of a percent of our population in the military.

I'm a Vietnam vet - I joined and served willingly until I got to Vietnam. I then began to understand what that war was about, and it was mainly about money, and the resources of the region that we had interests in. All wars are like that.

As a former Colorado Springs resident - I went to high school (Coronado), college (CC), and worked there for a few years (as a "computer programmer/analyst... remember those?) until I moved to NYC in 1981, so long ago... I miss what CS used to be. Back in the day, the "clean industry" was mostly electronics research and development. It felt kind of like the "Route 128 of the west." But even while I was still there, it started to shift. Ultra-conservatives like Will Perkins were starting to strut their stuff in the political-social arena (shoulda stuck to selling cars!), even while Richard Skorman was continuing to grow his haven for the thinking class downtown. Slowly, inevitably, those electronics makers started to be replaced by religious right organizations, lobbyists, non-profits, etc., of all kinds. It was sad to see happen, in what was otherwise such an encouraging place to live. The dramatic vistas, outdoor lifestyle, biking, hiking, camping, and skiing opportunities would, for me, start to be tarnished by the feeling that this state (and city) didn't love everyone equally. I left at the beginning of that shift, but have watched it from afar. Maybe I'm wrong about how it feels there now. I haven't been back in many years, though I'll likely visit soon. I hope there's at least a part of the feeling I once had there! It was a great life then!

I think as time goes by and they see that it's a benign substance the attitude will change for the positive. Alcohol is far worse than Society deals with the consequences of that so I think a little tolerance is in order

Many definitions of being a hipster! I think "beards" are common for a hipster. Its just that beards also make a fashion statement. Maintaining beards will allow a man to look classy and more stylish if managed well. Beard grooming tactics and techniques are available to enrich and ensure facial hair growth.
http://www.beard-growth.com/

More Americans have been killed by Right-Wing Christian terrorists than by Muslim Terrorists in this country, yet we never hear about them. We cannot try and keep out one religious group without going against the Constitution.

There are three Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three have barbaric descriptions and instructions in their scriptures. All three have had people who used those scriptures to justify atrocities. All three have the capacity to foment violent extremism. The issue is scriptural literalism. The number people within a religion or group that read its scripture as infallible and hold its adherents to a single interpretation of its text correlates directly with the likelihood for religiously motivated violence from its members.

My core points are below, but it should be said that a person gives up certain rights when they choose to live in a communal setting. Rent a place away from people if you plan to have loud parties often, or if you're in a band/listen to loud music/have to practice/etc. It's common courtesy to think of others. Smoking, on the other hand, is less "overwhelming to the senses" and can be blown out of a window or circulated through vents. Instead of forcing the already poor into changing their lifestyle, why not require the owners of multiple-family dwellings to provide adequate ventilation for each unit? The temperature in a neighboring apartment should not interfere with my desired temperature, so why should the air we breath be so communal? I'd be more worried about the spread of disease, such as the flu and pneumonia!!

Subsidization (commonly "Section 8 housing") is usually provided to the owner of the building in the form of a monthly check. He/She must have applied to accept the money from the government, first of all. The goal is to lower the cost of rent for the tenant while simultaneously increasing the income to the owner of the property for taking on a high-risk/low-income resident. All this effectively does is raise the cost of rent across the board. Subsidized housing MUST be cheaper than standard rentals, right? There are basically two types of subsidized housing: "the projects" - apartment complexes/areas designed solely for section 8 housing, and then there's the situation where random houses throughout the city accept HUD payments. Memphis, TN is a great example of a city where "the projects" were demolished to deter crime in the downtown area, and the payments were given to the citizens (like food stamps) to pay whomever they could for rent. The crime DID slow rapidly downtown, but it spread across the city at an alarming rate. This made certain areas VASTLY more expensive to rent from, in order to deter crime, and then discrimination cries caused HUD payments to increase - forever perpetuating the cycle of price increases. So, in general, HUD housing sounds like something beneficial for those in need, but there are many seen and unseen consequences to its existence. For one, your neighbor could have a higher monthly cost of rent than you, yet winds up paying several hundred less. This is beginning to look like a war against those who pay taxes.

Packsafoilhat right on time with yet another comment outing himself as a complete moron.

What is the big bad government taking? Do you really think people that can't afford to own their own home deserve the right to destroy their landlord's property? And also to expose their neighbors to carcinogens? Much like your skull, the floors and walls on shared units are not airtight. Piss off back to the Fox News comments, it seems that village is missing one of its many idiots.

I agree with the earlier commentator about the definition in the article. This is a difficult situation because smoking is damaging to both wellness and property. However, banning people from smoking in their homes in public housing may also cause harm.

There is a strong, studied correlation between low-income status and smoking. There is similar prevalence in smoking as a coping mechanism in the presence of certain mental illnesses. Mobility to leave a place of residence to smoke in various environmental conditions may also be a challenge and limitation. As we know, smoking is very addictive and there is less access to diverse treatments for people with lower income. While public housing serves a diverse population, people with these identities are definitely among those served. Penalties and eviction might further marginalize members of already vulnerable populations as well as potentially add to the city's homelessness crisis.

I am no fan of tobacco and its effects and, as I have said, cannot come to my own solution on this subject. But I do think the above concerns need to be taken into account before a decision is made. (Apologies for the essay!)